Joker movie
- Started
- Last post
- 46 Responses
- pango4
that midget scene was great. lol
- PhanLo1
Thought it was alright, good performance from Phoenix.
The city/sets/environments were great.
- CygnusZero4-3
I thought one thing the movie really failed to do was show how Joker started a movement. There wasnt really any scenes showing people getting inspired by him or his actions. Just all of a sudden protesters start showing up in clown masks. It wasnt until the very end when they pick him up off that care and he stands above his followers. The movie needed to drive it home better what sort of impact he was making in the middle of the movie and it didnt try to at all.
All they needed was some scenes of groups of people maybe talking about him, like they did in the dark knight, or watching him on tv but they never did any of that.
- *off that carCygnusZero4
- Almost felt like the joker himself wasnt special at all. Could have been anyone.CygnusZero4
- Dunno, I connected the dots. Thank fuck they didn't have some dumb scene explaining everything to the audience.inteliboy
- @Cyguns, I think that was pointvalentim
- Actually weren't there a BUNCH of news story (tv/paper) blips and commentary from 'media' characters about how the 'clown killer' was inspiring a movement?mantrakid
- seemed pretty obviousmantrakid
- they did do that, it was just that the mob was rendered too simplisticallycannonball1978
- early on in film the shrink said things were really 'tense' out there, people were desperate... if I recallprophetone
- already at a tipping pointprophetone
- Joker had a twitter account that they didnt mention. They all organized over twitter. Fuck twitter.Beeswax
- We don't see "others" POV. Just Arthur. This is why we see no one chatting about it, or him, or anyone else motivation.robthelad
- I think the fact it wasn't spelt out for the dumb dumbs made it better, treated the viewer with some intelligence.TOMMYxGUNN
- robthelad2
THought this was an interesting take.
"Although Joker is a quintessential comic-book villain, the movie focused on his human side and portrayed him as a product of a toxic environment. The true villain in this movie is mass media which gave Joker all the praise and attention he always craved – but only after he murdered people.
Media turned Arthur – a nobody – into Joker – a somebody. And the gullible people, those who consume mass media with no discernment, turned that Joker into a political leader."
- CygnusZero4-1
Its not a superhero movie. There are no superheroes in it. Its one of those weird movies that doesnt really have a main protagonist or antagonist. Arthur is kind of both. In the beginning youre supposed to pull for him I guess, but then he starts becoming evil later on, but it almost never feels like he becomes that evil. More like he was pushed by the world into doing these things. I dont feel like he becomes the true Joker in this movie that just kills for fun.
There just needed to be more there though. I really wanted him to rob a bank or something first. Not jump straight into kill people. He doesnt even really kill that many people anyway. Whole movie was weird as hell.
- utopian-1
Several of my friends watched the movie. They all said the same exact thing...brilliant performance by Phoenix. But a lazy boring, "I heard this before" story.
- autoflavour-1
DeNiro was throw away tho, Rob burgundy would have been amazing
- autoflavour3
It was amazing. The fact it WASNT a super hero movie is actually what made it better. Broken people dealing with broken things.
If you didn’t like it, then, well maybe you went into the wrong cinema
- huh... it's the FUCKIN JOKER! He is a comic book villain! Based on what you said it just be John, Tom or Bob... why would i watch a movie about Bruce Wayne if..necromation
- if he doesn't become Batman? I'm lost man... i grew up reading these guy (dc & marvel) and hate this need to normalise this stories... just pisses over the fansnecromation
- Beeswax1
Neither a comic nor a psychological thriller.
A common origin story that gives not much more than Phoenix's performance.
- pango1
really good.
Heavy tho. Definitely not a feel good movie.
And I don't think everyone should watch it.
- necromation-3
What a pile of shit... I never understand people need to make comics 'more' real... I don't read comics for 'more real'
I've never been more bored with a movie in ages!
- I hear you. These moving, talking pictures are the devils work. Like me, are you also scared of the horseless carriages in streets.Morning_star
- I walked out in the middle, fight me :)helloeatbreathedrive
- Pistols at dawn it is then, you Cad. :)Morning_star
- lolllhelloeatbreathedrive
- CygnusZero40
Also seeing young bruce wayne in this movie, and the fact that they are already making a batman movie is kind of hilarious. Just goes to show that DC is winging it with these movies. Not really a set plan because if there was, obviously these would tie together, but they cant now.
Problem is Joker is older in this movie. Mid-late 40s, and bruce is a young kid, so by the time bruce grew up to become batman, joker would be like 70 lmao. Timeline doesnt work out at all. Missed opportunity to do something cool mixing the 2 movies together for a sequel at some point.
- maybe. Young bruce could be 14, joker could be late 20s (he's had a hard life). So not that unreasonable to have a batman being 25 and Joker 37.Morning_star
- People who care about every little detail will never fully enjoy a film. Its a movie about a fictional character - enjoy it for what it is.desmo
- Is the movie really supposed to tie-in with the rest of the DC cinematic universe, or is it more of a one-off piece?ETM
- There is no way arthur is in his late 20s in this movie lmaoCygnusZero4
- Batmen age faster because of sciencenb
- Maybe the joker then inspires another generation of Jokers? I like how it left so much to interpretation and didn't treat the viewer as an idiot - unlike MarvelIanbolton
- robthelad0
It's the best film I've seen in recent years
- inteliboy2
Incredibly well made and acted. Absolutely brilliant for a comic book movie.
- hardhat1
I personally thought it was pretty good, especially given the state of cinema these days. It was a bit of a sleeper cell in the same way funny games (the English speaking remake) was. People who may have been expecting another “superhero” flick might have found themselves blindsided. But then again, maybe they saw the wrong things they were supposed to see. All told I thought it was pretty solid. Stole/borrowed a lot from 70s cinema but in a good way. Having grown up with that stuff I wasn’t insulted or otherwise. He’s not an auteur but all that said, did a good entertaining job.
- Morning_star0
I felt my money was well spent. Saw Ad Astra the other week and wanted my fucking money back but this, this was a good movie.
Felt the music was great, didn't know whether the Gary Glitter track was purposefully controversial or not, i'm gonna guess that it was. And, when 'White Room' kicked in, well, RIP Ginger.
Cinematography was cool, and i liked that fact that we didn't need to see the abuse of young Arthur to give his mental health credibility.
As a comment on todays society?, i felt it captured some of the meetoo/anonymous spirit quite successfully. And it reflected the demise and insignificance of terrestrial TV through DeNiros ultimately cruelty.
Overall, better than your mum, not as good as your dad.
- Yeah, Ad Astra was a disappointment. Fucking great first action scene, though.babydick
- is batman in it?wagshaft
- No, unfortunately Batman wasn't in Ad Astra although one of the Men In Black was.Morning_star